You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.


October 10, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


On 27 January 1995, an information for rape was filed against accused-appellant Manuel Pruna y Ramirez or Erman
Pruna y Ramirez (hereafter PRUNA), the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about January 3, 1995 at Sitio Tabing-ilog, Brgy. Panilao, Pilar, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused thru force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed
to have sexual intercourse with the offended party, Lizette Arabelle Gonzales, a 3-year-old minor girl, against the will and consent of
the latter, to her damage and prejudice.

Dr. Emelita Quiroz, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the Bataan Provincial Hospital, testified that on 3 January 1995,
she conducted a complete physical examination on LIZETTE and took wet smear specimen from her vaginal wall through
scraping. The urinalysis report includes a positive finding for "sperm cells." Dr. Quiroz explained that the presence of
sperm cells in the vaginal canal signified that sexual intercourse and ejaculation had occurred on the person of the
patient. There was no laceration; but there was hyperemia, which means reddening of the tissue around the vaginal

On the other hand, PRUNA denied having raped LIZETTE. He claimed that in the morning of 3 January 1995, he was in
his house preparing coffee for Carlito. After Carlito left, several men arrived and boxed him for reasons not known to him.
Carlito and the latters friend then brought him to the barangay hall. There, LIZETTEs father boxed him. He was thereafter
brought to the Pilar Municipal Jail.

Whether LIZETTE was a competent and credible witness considering that she was allegedly only 3 years old when the
alleged rape occurred and 5 years old when she testified. YES
Whether or not there was sufficient Evidence of LIZETTEs Minority to substantiate the propriety of the Imposition of the
Death Penalty. NO

1. As a general rule, when a witness takes the witness stand, the law, on ground of public policy, presumes that he is competent.
The court cannot reject the witness in the absence of proof of his incompetency. The burden is, therefore, upon the party objecting
to the competency of a witness to establish the ground of incompetency.
Section 21 of Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence enumerates the persons who are disqualified to be witnesses. Among those
disqualified are "[c]hildren whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which they are examined and relating them truthfully."
No precise minimum age can be fixed at which children shall be excluded from testifying. The intelligence, not the age, of a young
child is the test of the competency as a witness. It is settled that a child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can
perceive and, in perceiving, can make known his perception to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully the facts for which
he is examined.
In determining the competency of a child witness, the court must consider his capacity (a) at the time the fact to be testified to
occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof; (b) to comprehend the obligation of an oath; and (c) to
relate those facts truly to the court at the time he is offered as a witness. The examination should show that the child has some
understanding of the punishment which may result from false swearing. The requisite appreciation of consequences is disclosed
where the child states that he knows that it is wrong to tell a lie, and that he would be punished if he does so, or that he uses
language which is equivalent to saying that he would be sent to hell for false swearing. A child can be disqualified only if it can
be shown that his mental maturity renders him incapable of perceiving facts respecting which he is being examined and of
relating them truthfully.
In this case, appellant questions the competency of LIZETTE as a witness solely on the ground of her age. He failed to discharge
the burden of showing her mental immaturity. From the above-quoted testimony, it can be gleaned that LIZETTE had the capacity of
observation, recollection, and communication34 and that she could discern the consequence of telling a lie. We, therefore, sustain
the trial court in admitting her testimony and according it great weight.
We are not persuaded by appellants assertion that LIZETTE should not be allowed to testify two years after the alleged rape "when
the interplay of frail memory combines with the imagination of earlier years." It must be noted that it is a most natural reaction for
victims of criminal violence to have a lasting impression of the manner in which the crime was committed and the identity of the
person responsible therefor.

In a string of cases, we have said that the testimony of a rape victim who is of young or tender age is credible and deserves full
credit, especially where no motive is attributed to the victim that would make her testify falsely against the accused. Indeed, a girl of
such age as LIZETTE would not concoct a story of defloration; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo the expense,
trouble, inconvenience, and the trauma of a public trial unless she was in fact raped.

2. The following are guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth
of such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records
which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who
is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant
to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7
years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12
years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18
years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victims mother or relatives
concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by
the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to
the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

In the present case, no birth certificate or any similar authentic document, such as a baptismal certificate of LIZETTE, was
presented to prove her age. In view of the uncertainty of LIZETTEs exact age, corroborative evidence such as her birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other authentic document should be introduced in evidence in order that the qualifying circumstance of
"below seven (7) years old" is appreciated against the appellant. The lack of objection on the part of the defense as to her age did
not excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden. That the defense invoked LIZETTEs tender age for purposes of questioning
her competency to testify is not necessarily an admission that she was below 7 years of age when PRUNA raped her on 3 January
1995. Such being the case, PRUNA cannot be convicted of qualified rape, and hence the death penalty cannot be imposed on him.
However, conformably with no. 3(b) of the foregoing guidelines, the testimony of LIZETTEs mother that she was 3 years old at the
time of the commission of the crime is sufficient for purposes of holding PRUNA liable for statutory rape, or rape of a girl below 12
years of age. Under the second paragraph of Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, in relation to no. 3 of the first paragraph
thereof, having carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the penalty to be
imposed on PRUNA should be reclusion perpetua, and not death penalty.